SCOTUS Lifts Eviction Moratorium, Again: Read It For Yourself
In an unsigned eight page ruling, the Supreme Court for a second time ruled the CDC’s eviction moratorium exceeded it’s authority. “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority” the ruling states, while Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented.
Just under two months after a divided court allowed an earlier moratorium to remain in place, the Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked the Biden administration from enforcing the latest federal moratorium on evictions, imposed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The justices divided along ideological lines, with the court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – dissenting from the unsigned eight-page decision. The ruling was the second defeat for the Biden administration on the so-called “shadow docket” in three days, following the court’s refusal on Tuesday night to block a lower court’s order requiring the Biden administration to reinstate the Trump-era “remain in Mexico” policy.
The decision on the eviction moratorium was a decisive rebuke for the Biden administration, with the majority writing that it “strains credulity to believe” that the public-health law at the center of the case gives the Centers for Disease Control the power to enact the moratorium. “If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue,” the court stressed, “Congress must specifically authorize it.”
When the justices were asked to intervene at the end of June, they were considering whether to lift a ban on evictions that applied to all rental properties in the United States. The CDC had extended the moratorium through July 2021.
A group of Alabama real estate agents and landlords went to federal court in Washington, D.C., to challenge the moratorium. They argued that the CDC lacked the authority to impose the moratorium, which they say is costing landlords billions of dollars in unpaid rent each month.
A divided Supreme Court rejected the challengers’ plea to lift the earlier iteration of the ban on evictions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh provided the key vote to keep the moratorium in place. Although he agreed with the challengers that the CDC lacked the power to issue the moratorium, he joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – in voting to leave the ban in effect, explaining that it was scheduled to expire at the end of July.
The White House initially indicated that the CDC would not extend the moratorium when it expired. But when Congress failed to do so, the CDC issued a new version of the moratorium that applied to most, though not all, of the country and was slated to last until Oct. 3.
The real estate agents and landlords returned to court to challenge the new version of the moratorium. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who had previously agreed with them that the CDC does not have the authority to issue the ban, reasoned that because the new version was “virtually identical” to the version covered by her earlier ruling, her “hands are tied” by an appeals court decision putting that order on hold.
The challengers then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which left the new version of the moratorium in place in a brief order last week.
Read the Supreme Court ruling on the eviction moratorium for yourself here:
eviction moratorium
The two takes of this that I have seen:
1. The CDC had already been established as not (yet) having the authority to make this call once or twice before. The only people who can give the CDC this authority is the legislative branch, the executive branch does not have it (yet). If you want the CDC to have the authority to do this, it needs to be granted this power by the legislative branch.
2. But it’d help people out in the short term! Therefore the CDC has this authority *NOW*.Report
3. It would be dumb to give this authority to the CDC, ever. Ever, ever.
4. SCOTUS would/should strike down the delegation should it even happen.
5. If congress sees this as an important matter, they can legislate a relief act.
I’m not sure Congress could simply forbid evictions (that would indeed be an indirect form of taking) but they could (and did) craft legislation to aid people in paying these bills… it could go to renters by need, it could go to landlords by proof of deficit, it could go to citizens as stimulus… the remedy to the problem is so open to solutions that the only way we *shouldn’t* do it, is by some sort of departmental fiat. Ever.
The fact that the relief acts they have done are pretty bad is a lesson in crafting good relief acts, not a reason for the Executive/CDC to usurp powers it can’t possibly have.Report
But it’d help people out in the short term!Report
Heh… like this is April 2020. Congress has the power to address the shitty aid-plan they passed… and if they need more time, they can extend a moratorium while they price that in to a hopefully less shitty aid plan.Report
I am tired and grumpy this morning, so leaning towards the position that the SCOTUS has decided the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact if Congress decides (by action, or inaction) that it is.
I blame the tired and grumpy on donating blood (we are in an apparently open-ended shortage situation). A combination of giving them 10% of my oxygen transport capacity and dealing with the perky young woman: “Hi! I’m Yoshi, and I’ll be stabbing you this morning!”Report
Polity is a suicide pact; a constitution is the thing that prevents the suicide from happening.Report
Letting the moratorium persist without a clear exit plan is also a suicide pact.
It would be better if the states hadn’t been dragging their heels so badly on getting the rental assistance to anyone, but they haven’t, and the clock is running out.Report
The Constitution is not a suicide pact is usually attributed to Lincoln and his address to Congress in reference to Taney’s decision in Ex Parte Merryman. Burt Likko has said it was Taney’s finest hour.
I think there is a significant qualitative difference in that Baltimore officials had burned bridges and denied passage to federal troops through Maryland. The legislators could not return to Washington to vote on suspension of the writ without using the military to secure a route through Maryland. There is nothing preventing Congress from passing laws here.Report
I’m more intrigued at the logical contortions the dissenters have to undertake to justify the CDC actions.Report
The set of things that are good and the set of things that are constitutional are co-extensive.
This would be good.
Therefore: It is constitutional.
Q.E.D.Report
Which, by the way is the Adrian Vermeule replacement theory to Originalism on the right: Common Good Constitutionalism
Put it in the ‘you’ll miss Originalism when it’s gone’ category.
p.s. comment in moderation for potty mouthing.Report
I don’t get how there’s a split on this. It isn’t even clear that Congress has the power to suspend state and local action of this nature. Even then, by the dissenters’ logic what couldn’t the CDC do? And by extension what couldn’t any admin agency do?Report
This. A given state or county may be able to suspend evictions (since local LE enforces them), but the feds don’t have that kind of power, never have (TTBOMK), and certainly not an entity like the CDC. At best, they should have been able to strongly recommend a moratorium.Report
Yeah the evictions suck but I also don’t see how anyone honestly thought this’d hold up in court. Frankly, to be blunt, I think the Admin didn’t think it’d hold up either and just did it to give the states a few extra weeks to try and sort out their rental assistance crap show.Report
Good news! The CDC is now talking about gun violence.
Critics are pouncing on this, calling it a transparent ploy to distract from recent debacles.
This demonstrates their lack of good faith.Report
Sigh. I agree the CDC didn’t have the authority, so I’m not surprised.
I do think if and when a few million more people get evicted from their housing, it will be a bad thing. But, like the botched exit strategy in Afghanistan, it’s one of those bad things that will be treated as yesterday’s news today.Report
Related:
Report
Makes sense. If you have a number of units and you can’t evict people and you aren’t getting income from the units, then you need to get the income from somewhere. So new tenants are the potential source.
Taxes and mortgages and upkeep still has to be paid for.
What the CDC should have done is put a halt on foreclosures of residential property, and accrual of interest and collection of property taxes.Report